And for the record...
Posted by Dave Schilling on 11.07.2008
One more word on the Prop. 8 rally
Some comments in the original Prop. 8 post got the impression that I am "anti-police." No, I am not anti-police in any way. The police are a necessary aspect of our society and God bless them for keeping us safe. I AM very wary of the LAPD though, primarily because of their rather checkered history. Of course, most police departments in major cities are under the gun (literally) on a regular basis to keep crime down. Sometimes the easy thing is to just "get tougher." Well, there needs to be a line between doing all that is necessary to keep people safe and actually putting someone in danger.
In the case of Wednesday's protest, the LAPD mostly performed well. I commend them for keeping things relatively peaceful, but I still feel the need to shed some light on the one instance of unnecessary force used against a rowdy protester. The guys who jumped the line were wrong, certainly, but they were not dangerous enough to merit a beating of any kind. There was a real chance that an act like that could have ignited an even greater problem. Fortunately, the protesters didn't respond in kind.
Lastly, a comment took me to task for comparing the struggle of blacks to gays. Yes, there IS a distinction. One is an ethnic group, the other a sexual orientation. We can get into the argument about whether or not being gay is a choice. I don't think it is. The common denominator is that gay people are being denied equal treatment under the law, just as African-Americans were when they weren't allowed to marry outside of their race. Two consenting adults should not be denied equal treatment when it comes to the way they live their lives. This is America, people. We have been fighting to make all men (and women) equal since the start of this country. Why does that stop at who you want to marry when you get to be an adult?
The Mormon church, or any religious group, can choose to perform same-sex marriages or not. Religions can choose to act any way they want, but the Federal government cannot discriminate against minority groups.
Posted By: Guest#4754 (Guest) on November 07, 2008 at 02:08 PM
How come the only people who think gay is a choice are the ones who, lo and behold, are straight? I've never, ever met a gay person who said "Yeah, you know, the world really sucks for gays in so many ways. THAT is what I want to be. Come on, persecution! I can't wait!"
Stupid people claim it's a choice because admitting it's not would be, somehow, injuring their own inflated self-worth. You know, they're more "godly" in their straightness, so admitting somebody else is equal lessens their standing.
Posted By: JD Koziarski (Registered) on November 07, 2008 at 02:13 PM
The population voted, and they chose to not allow it, even in the most LIBERAL state in the US it didn't pass. So come on, let it go. People don't want to see homosexual marriages. If there were a way for "gay" couples to pro-create on their own with out and medical assistance, then I think more people would be open to it and think that is something you're born with. But its not, as a man, you choose where to put your stuff just like a woman chooses what to let inside of hers. And so if people try to say its something in the gay persons brain that causes them to live that way, does that mean that being gay is a mental disorder?
Posted By: PeopleVoted (Guest) on November 07, 2008 at 02:27 PM
To PeopleVoted:
So all that matters as far as marriage is the ability to procreate without medical assistance? Does that mean straight people who can't get pregnant on their own should not be allowed to be married? How about an impotent guy. Hell how about a man who needs viagra?
Posted By: Elton John (Guest) on November 07, 2008 at 03:32 PM
California is HARDLY the most liberal state in the US. Feel free to have a look at the voting history (outside of the presidental elections) of these counties and tell me they are "liberal":
Merced
Fresno
Kern
Orange
Madera
Stanislaus
Those are just ones off the top of my head that are very conservative. San Francisco and Los Angeles are very liberal cities, with outlying areas that tend to be liberal also, but that forgets that this is a state of over 30 million people and very diverse. I should also remind the readers out there that the conservative savior, Ronald Reagan, was governor of California. Our current governor also happens to be a Republican. WEEEEEEEEEIRD!
Posted By: Dave Schilling (Registered) on November 07, 2008 at 03:37 PM
"The guys who jumped the line were wrong, certainly, but they were not dangerous enough to merit a beating of any kind. There was a real chance that an act like that could have ignited an even greater problem."
In a protest situation, anyone that isn't acting in a peaceful manner is a danger. Those guys jumping the line could have caused more people to do the same in a domino effect, "igniting an even greater problem." LAPD gets more sh*t than they deserve just because of the liberals they are around. Now would I want to work there... no. Too much stress with the gangs and monday morning quarterbacking from the locals/press. One of the few good things about living in a red state, law enforcement is still respected.
Posted By: wcwchris (Guest) on November 07, 2008 at 06:07 PM
The Daily Show had it perfect. California ensured that chickens in slaughter houses have enough legroom. If my friends who have been together for 50 years want to share pension and SS benefits because one worked and the other didn't, well fuck them. Leave the queer geezer on medicaid! The irony is they saved and did everything a regular couple would to be self sufficient, and YOU who voted AGAINST gay marriage in 3 states will have to pay for the abhorrent freak's care.
Jackasses.
Posted By: Eric L. (Guest) on November 07, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Hey Dave, I see you responded to my comment regarding the comparison of the struggle of blacks to gays. Even though I see where you're coming from I still don't view them as similar. The main arguments for the banning of marriage is very different between the two. Namely the gays getting married is clearly a religious battle more then anything. When blacks weren't allowed to have interracial marriage it was more about ignorance and the color of skin, not so much the bible says "thou shalt not have blacks marry white". Prop 8 is a battle of the gays versus the religious. Religion had far less to do with the opposition to blacks getting married. The battle here is the time old "separation of church and state", sadly the resolution to this problem is very easy in my opinion. Just have the state marry gays, and keep the gays from picketing and prosecuting pastors who don't want to marry them. Trying to bully a pastor into marrying a gay couple is taking away the same type of fundamental rights from a pastor that the gays are complaining about not having.
Posted By: Just One Thing (Guest) on November 08, 2008 at 12:33 AM
"Our current governor also happens to be a Republican."
Yeah, but he's AHHHNULD. That *did* make a difference, I remember.
Posted By: Edward (Guest) on November 08, 2008 at 04:29 AM
Freedom and equal rights shouldn't be at the mercy of a public vote. That why the constitution exists in he first place.
Democracy does not have to equal the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
People shouldn't suffer just because alot of other people are still ignorant.
Posted By: Rich (Guest) on November 08, 2008 at 06:37 AM
Prop 8 would not have forced pastors to marry gays though Just One Thing.
Posted By: Rich (Guest) on November 08, 2008 at 09:32 AM
****The battle here is the time old "separation of church and state", sadly the resolution to this problem is very easy in my opinion. Just have the state marry gays, and keep the gays from picketing and prosecuting pastors who don't want to marry them. Trying to bully a pastor into marrying a gay couple is taking away the same type of fundamental rights from a pastor that the gays are complaining about not having.****
These kinds of misunderestandings are part of the problem. No gay person wants to force any religious pastor, priest or minister to marry them who believes they are an abomination, or one who thinks they are responsible for Katrina, 9/11, etc, etc. It's hard for gays to respect denominations that have these views, but ignore that eating shell fish and playing with a pigskin football are also abominations or that adulterers should be stoned to death.
Even now any priest or minister has the right not to marry any couple they choose. Catholics make you go through about 6 months of marriage counseling before they'll consider marrying you, and they won't marry you again if you've been divorced without an annulment through the church. Have you ever heard of Catholics trying to force a priest to perform a 2nd marriage. No, because they don't want to be married by anyone who believes their marriage is a sin, so they find a denomination that doesn't believe it's a sin or they get a civil marriage.
18,000 gay marriages were performed over the last 4 months, there's not one case of anyone trying to force any religious denomination to marry them and the world didn't come to an end or destroy any hetero couples' family or marriage. All they want is the same rights hetero couples have, and I think the answer is to have ANY and ALL couples that want government rights be required to have a civil union. Then if they want a religious *marriage* they can have one with a priest or minister who agrees to perform the ceremony. There are denominations that will perform gay ceremonies if the couple wants one, but a religious ceremony shouldn't confer any government rights in my opinion.
Separate government rights from religious ceremonies and the problem is solved. Religious denominations will still be able to define the term *marriage* however they believe it should be and couples can still commit to each other in the eyes of God, but if they want government benefits, they have to go through the government just as they do for a divorce. The government should not be in the business of defining the term marriage unless they define it the same way for everyone. Making equal rights subject to the popular vote of a majority is the most slippery slope of all.
Posted By: Guest#7951 (Guest) on November 08, 2008 at 03:36 PM
Why should we cordon-off a market that would make the ABA drool? Same Sex Divorce Lawyers, I can see the ads already. Same Sex Marriage custody litigation would produce enormous legal fees. Epic.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 08, 2008 at 05:32 PM
I think Guest#7951 has the best idea. Religious people get to keep their (hypocritical) views intact and everyone else can get their rights.
Posted By: Rich (Guest) on November 08, 2008 at 06:44 PM
Actually Guest#7951, I had a gay couple come to church I attend, and after our pastor refused to marry them, they tried to prosecute him for discrimination. Like I was saying, these two things just need to be separated.
Posted By: Just One Thing (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 01:16 AM
I think you would find they would fail miserably to be win in court. So you have nothing to worry about.
It's also not air to judge a whole group of people on the actions of two individuals
Posted By: Rich (Guest) on November 09, 2008 at 08:41 AM
STAY CURRENT